§ MR. CHAPLINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with respect to the Resolution of the House of Commons of July 10th, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in case the evidence to which he referred should lead to the conclusion that there is any danger of importing Foot and Mouth Disease, by the landing. of animals alive from any specified foreign Country, from which they are allowed to land alive at present, to take steps to prevent their landing in future; until, in the opinion of the Privy Council, the general sanitary condition of such specified country or countries and of the animals therein is such as to come within the terms of the fourth section of the Fifth Schedule of "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," under which animals coming from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and British North America, are exempted from slaughter at the port of landing at the present time; and, if not, what other steps the Government intend to take to give effect to the Resolution of the House of Commons of July 10th?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I may correct an expression used by the hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that I ever said that the Government intended to take evidence. That would have been a phrase conveying, I think, a different sense from that which I intended to convey. As I understand this Question, it amounts to this—Whether Her Majesty's Government will abolish the practice of slaughtering cattle upon importation, and will deal simply in one of two ways with foreign cattle—either allow them to pass where they are justified under the terms of the law at once into the country, and the other of excluding them altogether? We cannot undertake to pursue that course, because that is a course which we have already declared we do not think we could pursue consistently with the law. What I 303 stated on a former occasion was, that the Privy Council would carefully examine into the evidence laid before it from foreign countries, of course receiving any new evidence that might come before it; and if they find that in any instance where cattle are now admitted they ought to be slaughtered on importation, or if they find where they are now slaughtered upon importation there ought to be absolute prohibition, upon seeing that the law justified the adoption of that course, the Privy Council would proceed to that course.
§ MR. CHAPLINIt was precisely because I was unable to understand the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the other day that I placed this Question on the Paper; and I confess I do not understand very much more now than I did then. What I wish,to know is, whether, in the opinion of the Government, they are not able, under the existing law, to carry out the Resolution of the 10th of July; and whether they intend to introduce any further legislation on the subject?
MR. GLADSTONEI think I may say the Government has no intention of proposing further legislation this Session.
§ MR. CHAPLINThen I am to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government intend to set at nought the Resolution of the 10th of July?
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman can put whatever construction he pleases upon the answer I have given; But I have, I think, afforded the clearest evidence that we desire to give the utmost effect we can to the Resolution of the House of Commons, compatible with that duty which is higher than that of any Resolution of the House—namely, obedience to the provisions of the law as it stands.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDIs the House to understand from the statement of the Prime Minister that should the evidence the Privy Council collect, and should the powers of the Act of 1878 be insufficient to prevent the introduction of disease, the Government will refuse to amend the Act? That is what the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) wants to know.
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; I do not think that I made any representations as to the intention of the Government which justify the statement of the 304 hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard). The Government will ascertain, by careful examination, whether the provisions of the existing law are sufficient to carry out the Resolution of July 10. Should they have reason to think that the provisions of the existing law are insufficient, it will be their duty to consider whether there ought to be fresh legislation.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI should like to ask this Question, whether the results of that examination will be published? Then we should know whether importation will be prohibited from a single country from which it is now allowed.
MR. GLADSTONEWhat I have said is, that a certain course of administrative action would be pursued in a certain Department; and probably the Member of the Government who represents that Department will be better able than I am to answer the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. CALLANOn Monday I will ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will give effect to the Resolution of the House as to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, as the Government has done to the Vote of the House with reference to the Contagious Diseases (Man's) Act?
§ MR. CHAPLINWill the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, in the event of any cargo of diseased animals being landed from a foreign country, the fact shall be publicly notified?
MR. GLADSTONEThat is also an administrative Question, on which I will satisfy myself by inquiry, as I am not in charge of the administration of every Department of the Government.